Plurality voting, whereby the candidate with the greatest number of
votes wins, is the norm in most American elections, including in most
New York City elections. As a result, time and again we witness
some of our most powerful elected offices filled with candidates who
were not supported by the majority of voters.

This problem is compounded when plurality voting is also used in
primary elections. Party primaries often see a crowded field of
candidates from across the political spectrum vying for a single
nomination. This frequently leads to a party's nominee representing a
large and diverse constituency in the general election, after having
only garnered the support of a small fraction of the party's
supporters. New York City elections, including in this year, are
historically riddled with examples of plurality winners being nominated
and later elected with the support of only a fraction of the
electorate. In a general election, this same candidate can go on to win
again without a majority of voters' support. An equally likely
scenario, however, is that a party's eventual nominee is not the
strongest candidate that they could have endorsed for the general
election.

The city in its mayoral elections has attempted to solve this problem
by adopting a two-round runoff system, but as demonstrated in this
year's Democratic Party mayoral primary - even this solution fails. The
costs of conducting this second round runoff can also be substantial,
as jurisdictions must print ballots, recruit and train pollworkers,
locate precincts, and prepare voting equipment -- not once, but twice.
In New York City, a second round runoff election costs approximately
$10 million of precious taxpayer and city resources. In addition,
second round runoffs are held shortly after the first round election,
creating numerous administrative hurdles for election officials. For
example, ballots must be printed quickly after the first round, but not
until officials know who the top two vote-getters are. Likewise, this
process can often disenfranchise overseas and absentee voters, who will
not have enough time to return their ballots after they have been
printed and mailed to them. Lastly, two-round runoff elections require
candidates to raise money twice, often requiring an influx of
additional special interest contributions for the second round runoff,
and they cause drops in voter turnout, as they require voters to go to
the polls twice.

New York could learn from the San Francisco model, and implement
instant runoff voting (IRV) to produce party nominees with the support
of more voters in one round instead of two, thereby saving millions of
dollars and avoiding drops in turnout. In contrast to the two-round
runoff system, IRV simulates a series of runoffs on one ballot. By
ranking candidates in order of preference, the voter expresses his/her
will in each round of counting, rendering moot the need for a second
election. In a traditional runoff system, if your candidate makes it to
the runoff, you would continue to support that person by voting for
him/her a second time. Similarly, under IRV, if your favorite candidate
advances after the first round of counting, your ballot would continue
to support him/her. However, since the tallying is conducted on one
ballot, taxpayers save the cost of a second election, voters don't have
to return to the polls, and candidates don't need to fundraise and
campaign for an extended period. Avoding the turnout drop associated
with second round elections also means that the majority required to
win under IRV represents the support of a much larger number of
voters than in traditional runoffs.

Below we have highlighted the low plurality winners in New York City's 2005 primary races: